State v. Matia, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Matia, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2003)

2003 Ohio 6630

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 11, 2003

DocketNo. 83661.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2003 Ohio 6630 (State v. Matia, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2003)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Matia, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2003), 2003 Ohio 6630 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} On October 22, 2003, relator, Ronald Molton, commenced this mandamus action to compel Judge David T. Matia, Jr. to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law after denying Molton's motion to withdraw his guilty plea in State v. Molton, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-190261. On November 19, 2003, respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reason, we grant respondent's motion.

{¶ 2} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that: (1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the relief he seeks; (2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and (3) the relator possesses no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel.Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 613 N.E.2d 232, citing, Stateex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225.

{¶ 3} The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 does not require a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Chavis v. Griffin (2001),91 Ohio St.3d 50, 741 N.E.2d 130; State ex rel. Kavlich v. McMonagle (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76927; State v. Halliwell (Dec. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369. In light of these holdings, we find that Molton does not possess a clear legal right to the requested relief, and Judge Matia does not possess a clear legal duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we grant the respondent's motion for summary judgment. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶ 4} Writ denied.

Frank D. Celebrezze, JR., P.J., concurs.

Anthony O. Calabrese, JR., J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORIGINAL ACTION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} On October 22, 2003, relator, Ronald Molton, commenced this mandamus action to compel Judge David T. Matia, Jr. to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law after denying Molton's motion to withdraw his guilty plea in State v. Molton, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-190261. On November 19, 2003, respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reason, we grant respondent's motion.

{¶ 2} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that: (1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the relief he seeks; (2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and (3) the relator possesses no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel.Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 613 N.E.2d 232, citing, Stateex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225.

{¶ 3} The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 does not require a trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. Chavis v. Griffin (2001),91 Ohio St.3d 50, 741 N.E.2d 130; State ex rel. Kavlich v. McMonagle (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76927; State v. Halliwell (Dec. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70369. In light of these holdings, we find that Molton does not possess a clear legal right to the requested relief, and Judge Matia does not possess a clear legal duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we grant the respondent's motion for summary judgment. Relator to bear costs. It is further ordered that the clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶ 4} Writ denied.

Frank D. Celebrezze, JR., P.J., concurs.

Anthony O. Calabrese, JR., J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2003 Ohio 6630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-matia-unpublished-decision-12-11-2003-ohioctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack